Is it immoral to survive eating fast food all day? As far as I know it is only a health risk, not immoral.

‘disease spreading’ is an incredibly low bar for morality… any and all human contact, likely, immoral

this is just like the’ doesnt/cant lead to pregnancy’, ‘not the intended purpose’ justifications with extra steps, which make no sense in reality.

you cannot logic someone out of a position they didnt logic themselves into… you have to know your words do not matter to these people.

I’d tell them that they’re in the wrong community, for that is in fact a stupid question.

Not all gay people engage in anal sex.

Scan the room, make sure you know where the exits are. Look for friends and potential allies in the crowd in case things go badly. Make polite excuses as to why you’ll be leaving now. Back away slowly.

Keep in mind they’re sophists

If they start talking, be ready to make a run for it.

The idea that gay sex is anal sex is a myth. From what I’ve heard, it’s mostly cuddling, blowjobs, mutual masturbation and a bit of sword fighting. For most people anal takes a lot of prep. Eating, douching, etc.

Remember reading a study which suggested a third engaged in anal sex (semi-)regularly. Ie. plenty of gay men don’t have anal sex often if at all. And for those who do engage in anal sex regularly they’re mostly using a condom or if not on something like truvada which almost entirely prevents the risk of contracting HIV.

On the other hand, anal sex is also surprisingly common in heterosexual sex. Quick google suggests just under half of heterosexual men have had anal sex. Sexual practices among heterosexual people are also often very poor. I mean, outside the gay community it’s unlikely people have even heard of truvada or stuff like that. Gay people actually do talk openly about that kind of stuff.

Is heterosexuality immoral because straight people have so much anal and take so many risks?

Then driving is immoral because it’s dangerous. Cars kill way more people than butt sex, tell them they’re not allowed to drive anymore.

Also, no more ice cream, just look say how many people die annually because of diabetes.

There are plenty of things that people do every day that contribute to the potential spreading of diseases, from every kind of sex to not wearing a mask when you’re sick.

To single out anal sex as a sign that homosexuality is immoral (despite the fact that vaginal sex can also spread diseases, and despite the fact that anal sex is not exclusive to gay people) is a sign that the person you’re talking to is biased and arguing in bad faith.

Ethically speaking, if someone wants to live by a moral system that differentiates between right and wrong based on the potential to spread disease, then that’s fine, but that logic still needs to be coherent and apply to all things, not just selectively to things that they dislike.

But anyway, if they’re sophists, you probably aren’t going to convince them. If you have to engage with that shit, then your best bet is probably the socratic method: ask them targeted questions to poke holes in their flawed logic until they back themselves into a corner. You know what they’re saying doesn’t make any sense, so simply asking them questions which reveal more contradictions will force them to adjust or abandon their position.

Not every couple have sex.

I don’t know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people.

This is actually by far the more important question you need to be answering, IMO.

Most of the time the particular specific objections people have to homosexuality are just things that they’ve come up with to excuse a deeper and more visceral problem they have with it. They may not even be aware of that, the human mind is a master of rationalization and self-deception. So generally speaking it’s pointless to address those surface-level objections, at least if your goal is to debate with the person themselves over it. Even if you convince them anal sex isn’t particularly disease-spreading, the fundamental “homosexuality is wrong” conviction will remain and they’ll just come up with something else to justify it. Unless you can somehow address the more fundamental issue you’re just playing whack-a-mole.

It’s a different matter when it’s a public debate, such as here on the Fediverse. In those cases arguing with someone who is fundamentally not convincible can still have value because the onlookers may be convinced.

Vaginal sex can also spread disease. If “spread disease” is your factor, no sex is allowable.

Gather up the people making that ridiculous argument, put them in a shipping container and drop them in the ocean

Reject the premise that disease and morality are in some way causally related. Once they make a claim close enough to reality to tell you what they’re really wrong about, start there.

They already conceded that hetero anal sex must also be considered immoral to maintain the view. Here’s what I’ve got; Anal isn’t a necessity. Homosexual people shouldn’t be framed as immoral simply for engaging in basic parts of life based on their sexual nature. Homosexuality isn’t inherently harmful and certainly not immoral. It’s not their fault for being the way they are, which isn’t wrong in any way, and it’s also possible to use protection to prevent STDs.

The “argument” is idiotic enough to not really need or deserve rebuttal. People like that are a waste of skin and nothing can be gained by arguing with them. Since it would be a waste, I might as well waste that time in a more pleasant way.

What is PIV?

However a lot of things can spread disease, and it’s mostly breathing.

I’d recommend to just not talk to nazis who are only permanently searching for “arguments” to justify being intolerant assholes.